On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 02:25:26PM -0700, Charlie Jenkins wrote: > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 09:50:32PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 06:03:19PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 11:18:21AM -0700, Charlie Jenkins wrote: > > > > All of the supported vendor extensions that have been listed in > > > > riscv_isa_vendor_ext_list can be exported through /proc/cpuinfo. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This seems fine, thanks for updating this interface :) > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Hmm, actually the automation on patchwork is complaining a bunch about > > the series, but I think that's mostly false positives except for this > > patch. The nommu defconfigs are prob the easiest way to reproduce this: > > /build/tmp.QPMRM3oUNu/arch/riscv/kernel/vendor_extensions.c:41:55: error: 'struct riscv_isa_vendor_ext_data_list' has no member named 'vendor_bitmap' > > /build/tmp.QPMRM3oUNu/arch/riscv/kernel/vendor_extensions.c:42:60: error: 'struct riscv_isa_vendor_ext_data_list' has no member named 'per_hart_vendor_bitmap'; did you mean 'per_hart_isa_bitmap'? > > /build/tmp.QPMRM3oUNu/arch/riscv/kernel/vendor_extensions.c:43:60: error: 'struct riscv_isa_vendor_ext_data_list' has no member named 'bitmap_size' > > > > Cheers, > > Conor. > > The false negatives always throw me off. Aye, it's pretty frustrating for me trying to report anything. Any time a bunch of headers change produces a bunch of file rebuilds and therefore warnings. That should in theory be caught by the fact that we apply the patch & build, jump back to HEAD~1, build that & grab the "before" warning state and then jump forward, rebuild the patch and gather the "after" state. The idea is that that is an apples:apples comparison as the same files will need to be rebuilt for both but it is falling over somewhere. Maybe I'll have time to look into that soonTM. > The errors are also offset by > one patch. Ye, that's my bad I think. In a rush off to another patch before the thought I had on it left my brain and just pressed reply on the wrong email. Sorry bout that :) > This was actually introduced in the following patch "riscv: > Introduce vendor variants of extension helpers" because I accidentally > fixed this issue in the patch "riscv: cpufeature: Extract common > elements from extension checking" instead of the one it was introduced > in.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
